Browsing stamps on dA, I see a lot of, I support <insert fictional character here> or I support <insert TV show here>. What about supporting something that actually matters, like, say, your very right to say what you support at all. People need to wake up and realize that their comfortable way of life is in danger. If they don't stand up and start defending their right to it, it will be gone within their lifetime.

This is for all you people who believe in the radical right-wing concept of liberty.

I like Liberty/Freedom, but it better stay like it is or improve and not become debauchery like in the recent years. I've seen so much "liberty" and "freedom of speech" in these recent years on the internet and for as long as I've been here, and boy oh boy does it become a pain in the ass when you just post an opinion and they say that you're violating their freedom by saying what you think. Doesn't it sound funny that enough liberty gives you the right to talk; but too much, a.k.a. the peak point of debauchery, of it sometimes gets you censored by others who do not agree with what you say?

Yes I am more then thankful, and cherish every moment that liberty existed. It is the only thing that we, have when it come to expression and thoughts, without it, nothing we have would exist. It's is more then ever impotent to keep this alive and well. There many people who would what to take this freedom of ours for there sake, and to keep people in line. And that my friends is dangerous, to censors someone life over control.

I hold this very dearly in my heart, and place this a the top of the rank list as the most valuable thing towards man.

Liberty is when our own president shoots at our Parlament with tanks. Liberty is when our people are suffering from hunger, poverty and the elite which is stealing everything. Liberty is when a drunk was president of my country for 9 years. Liberty, which did not bring happiness to people. Liberty, when it kills more people than the "bloody communism" does.

But it's the right-wing that's labeled it so. To them, the only way to truly support your country is to think the way they do. Those who deviate are considered suspect at the least and at the worst traitors.

Hmm, I don't know. I think it wasn't even a right wing concept originally. When the abolition of slavery was being considered, it was the Republicans (or the ones we consider to be right-wing nowadays) who were "progressive," "liberal" and the ones standing for freeing the slaves. It was the Democrats who were "conservative". I'm not pretending to be an expert on the subject, I'm just using it as an example of how the ideas used to be reversed way back when.

I think we all just type-cast our political parties into severe extremes. You consider the right-wing to be severe patriots. While I am a patriot, I understand that others don't like my country as much as they do. They're not traitors. They just have their own opinion. Am I right-wing because of that? Maybe.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find that an unfair stereotype. While stereotypes do exist for a reason, I do feel the need to point out that the left-wing has just as unflattering stereotypes as well. The only way to support your country/yourself is to think the way they do too.

I understand where you're coming from. It is too common for cartoonish generalizations to be made about people of differing viewpoints. It's a good way to "rally the troops" as it were, but it thwarts discussion and compromise. So, yes you're right that the left has it's share of stereotypes (of course, that in and of itself is a generalization, but to keep things simple let's overlook it for now).

My problem was grouping all "right-wing" people together. I should qualify that certain right-wing extremists, and even some that aren't quite so extreme, have purposefully set up political debate as war between devoted Americans and the treasonous. The underlying tactic isn't new, but the specifics have been thought up by the previously mentioned extremists. It's a way of diverting the debate to something irrelevant and putting opponents on the defense. Remember that even if it were proven that I hate America that wouldn't affect the validity of my opinion on tax rates or tort reform, the same way that me hating math doesn't disprove my conjecture that two plus two equals four.

As for Civil War era politics you are right that it was the Republicans who opposed slavery (if my memory of history class serves right, their general stance was to stop the expansion of slavery to new territories not complete abolition). I do want to clarify the situation. The crux of the conflict, besides racial tension, was state's rights. It was the Democrats who strongly opposed Federal intervention and the Republicans who supported Federal power (and/or opposed state's rights as some may see it). Now the opinions have reversed.* That's not to say the parties simply switched names over the years, things are more complex than that, but it would be unfair to draw the conclusion that the conservatives of today would have been the progressives of yesterday.

*Some fringe people (see Ron Paul) still hold so firmly to state's rights that they oppose Lincoln's use of force and even things such as The Civil Rights Act.

That is true. Certain extremists have set up political debate almost as a way to sift through those who they consider to be 'patriots' and those who aren't. For the sake of fairness, I would like to point out the acts of the left-wing extremists but I think that's detrimental to the main point of the conversation. I also concede that I don't know enough about either political party to make an informed point on that matter. On another point, the math illustration was funny but clear.

Thank you for clearing that up with Civil War politics. I meant it as a general assumption/example of how superficial views and opinions can change over the years (or even reverse). At first glance, it seems that the parties have seemed to trade polices, highlighting how they have changed (or not). I did not mean to insinuate that the parties have switched names or completely changed. That would be unfair when one sees all the underlying issues.

I'll admit even now that I plainly do not know as much about politics as I probably should. If we were to continue this conversation, I would be glad for it. But I do admit that I will not be able to trade the quality of information that you are giving me. I guess, if this were a more heated conversation, I would be admitting defeat. Again, I would love to hear more about this. It's because I do not know as much as I think I should, I do like to learn more. For the sake of-ahem-fairness, however, I'm going to pass the decision to continue this to you.